Author
Topic: The Pope (Read 11118 times)

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

I've also been reading different quotes from different Church Father such as this:

In the history of mankind there are 3 falls: The fall of Adam, of Judas the Iscariot and that of the Pope. The essence of falling into sin is always the same: the desire to become God by oneself. In this manner, a man insensibly equates himself with the devil, because he also wants to become God by himself to replace God with himself...The fall of the Pope lies exactly in this very thing; to want to replace the God-man with the man..." Fr Justin Popovich of Serbia

It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism - the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." St. Mark the Evgenikos (of Ephesus)

I've never heard of Roman Catholics claiming the Pope to be equal to God. Why do the Eastern Orthodox say that's what he's doing? Any insight would be appreciated.Thanks & God Bless†

Logged

Come, let us wonder at the virgin most pure, wondrous in herself, unique in creation, she gave birth, yet knew no man; her pure soul with wonder was filled, daily her mind gave praise in joy at the twofold wonder: her virginity preserved, her child most dear. Blessed is He who shone forth from her!

It is the traditionalist movement in the Orthodox Church which speaks so harshly about the Pope of Rome. The writings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, since 1965 (+/-), take quite the opposite position, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the two lungs of Christianity. Ecumenical Patriarchs in this period address the Pope as "Elder Brother." Relations with the heterodox is a topic on the planning agenda of the Great and Holy Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church, which has been in the planning stages since 1923. Although, even saints of the Orthodox Church have referred to the Pope as a heretic, contemporary hierarchs point out that a synod of the Church has never so condemned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

Because of the Apostolic foundations of the see and the importance of the city. The ancient Church was for the most part organized along the political lines of the Roman Impire. Cities had bishops large important cities had archbishops and the largest most important cities had patriarchs. The bishops of the larger cities would sit at the head of any local councils and that same pattern applies to the Ecumenical Church.

One thing you have to keep in mind all bishops are equal in that they all have the same sacramental grace to lead a community and define truth. Any rights or prerogatives the Pope or any other bishop for that matter have are theirs not because of divine right, as Catholics would say today but rather because the rest of the episcopate has ceded those rights to them.

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

Can you clarify: are you asking, Why have a first among equals at all, or Why was Rome the one to whom that honor was given?

Can you clarify: are you asking, Why have a first among equals at all, or Why was Rome the one to whom that honor was given?

Blessings,Peter.

A good question. And one I would like some input on from our non-Chalcedonians here as their take might represent a view of the early church. I know they eventually rejected the 4th Council on Christological (mostly) grounds, but I wonder what their bishops thought at that time of those canons ranking the sees.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

As others have pointed out, this was a primacy of honor accorded to Rome on account of its being/having been the capital of the empire and the site of the martyrdoms of saints Peter and Paul. He was first among equals - don't sell the "equals" part of that phrase short. The bishop of Rome never carried any special sacramental dignity in his own right. He was first among equals - since Rome divided itself from the Apostolic faith, it has no more ecclesial significance than the Reverend Al Sharpton.

Quote

I've also been reading different quotes from different Church Father such as this:

In the history of mankind there are 3 falls: The fall of Adam, of Judas the Iscariot and that of the Pope. The essence of falling into sin is always the same: the desire to become God by oneself. In this manner, a man insensibly equates himself with the devil, because he also wants to become God by himself to replace God with himself...The fall of the Pope lies exactly in this very thing; to want to replace the God-man with the man..." Fr Justin Popovich of Serbia

It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism - the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." St. Mark the Evgenikos (of Ephesus)

I've never heard of Roman Catholics claiming the Pope to be equal to God. Why do the Eastern Orthodox say that's what he's doing? Any insight would be appreciated.Thanks & God Bless†

Roman Catholics do not have to actually claim the pope to be equal to God for the above statements to be true. These people argue that the justifications for the papacy and the powers claimed by the pope place that man on a level where God alone should be.

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

So I know efforts towards improving relations are being made, but is the attitude of the Patriarch basically still that the Pope and Roman Catholics need to renounce the heresies that split them from Orthodoxy?

So I know efforts towards improving relations are being made, but is the attitude of the Patriarch basically still that the Pope and Roman Catholics need to renounce the heresies that split them from Orthodoxy?

Yeah, pretty much. If you read the EP's 1997 address at Georgetown University, he makes it pretty clear that there are substantial differences.

« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 11:53:31 AM by Orual »

Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better.

By claiming to be Head of the Church, Vicar of Christ.Christ is the "Head of the Church".

How can the Pope be the Head but at the same time only the Vicar? It makes no sense. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. The second of the titles you mentioned is a title used by the Supreme Pontiff---the first is not.

For illustration, read this short excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas's discussion of schism in his Summa

Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm

How can the Pope be the Head but at the same time only the Vicar? It makes no sense. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. The second of the titles you mentioned is a title used by the Supreme Pontiff---the first is not.

By claiming jurisdiction over all other bishops...but you know this argument, don't you?(Re: "Supreme Pontif")

« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 02:31:05 PM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

So we do. You EO constantly toss out that stale slogan The head of the Roman Catholic church is the Pope, while the head of the Holy Orthodox Church is Christ, yet it is false. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, who is the Head.

Can you clarify: are you asking, Why have a first among equals at all, or Why was Rome the one to whom that honor was given?

Blessings,Peter.

Well, orgiginally I was asking why Rome was the one, but an answer to both questions would be appreciated.God Bless†

Logged

Come, let us wonder at the virgin most pure, wondrous in herself, unique in creation, she gave birth, yet knew no man; her pure soul with wonder was filled, daily her mind gave praise in joy at the twofold wonder: her virginity preserved, her child most dear. Blessed is He who shone forth from her!

Why didn't the Pope every attend and Ecumenical Council? And what is meant when they say he was given the seat of honour at councils?

Logged

Come, let us wonder at the virgin most pure, wondrous in herself, unique in creation, she gave birth, yet knew no man; her pure soul with wonder was filled, daily her mind gave praise in joy at the twofold wonder: her virginity preserved, her child most dear. Blessed is He who shone forth from her!

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

The Orthodox Pope of Rome, since he was Bishop of Rome, was seen as "first among equals" and awarded certain canonical privileges because of the great apostolic origin of his see (having been established jointly by the Chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul), the fact that it was the imperial capital (Constantinople would later rise in rank due to it becoming the Eastern capital) and its good track record of orthodoxy.

I've never heard of Roman Catholics claiming the Pope to be equal to God. Why do the Eastern Orthodox say that's what he's doing? Any insight would be appreciated.

If God were walking the earth, people would disregard Church, Tradition and all other instruments of knowing truth and look to Him for Truth, since he is Truth, himself. Many Roman Catholics do the same with the Pope and no Pope since the Great Schism has made an effort to end such disorientation and objective blasphemy. This is the principal reason why we say that the Pope has (even if inadvertently) raised himself to the level of God.

As I indicated in Reply #3, the Pope of Rome never, never, was accorded the title of "First Among Equals." That title was given to the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose primacy was among the Eastern Patriarchates.

The Pope was considered to be in the primacial role of the Church, because his see was the capitol of the Empire and due to its Apostolic foundation.

The "Nativity/Theophany" issue of the official publication of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), "The Orthodox Church," features an Editorial by Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, "Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue," which discusses this matter at issue in this OCnet discussion. The document he is addressing is the result of the infamous RC/EO consultation held in Ravenna, Italy, where the Church of Russia's representatives abruptly left the consultation last Fall. "The Orthodox Church" is available through the OCA's website, www.oca.org.

the 8th volume of the Reference Book for Sacred Ministers (RC) reads: “Baptism is considered as always fully effectual, even in heretical and schismatical groups…Hence, according to classical Roman theology, every baptized person is by right subject to the jurisdiction of the pope…”

the 8th volume of the Reference Book for Sacred Ministers (RC) reads: “Baptism is considered as always fully effectual, even in heretical and schismatical groups…Hence, according to classical Roman theology, every baptized person is by right subject to the jurisdiction of the pope…”

Right. Every person baptized is put into a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Catholic Church. Their culpability (or lack thereof) for the state of schism and/or heresy that they are in depends on each individual and can only be left up to God.

Through the dogma of "Infallibility" the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place. St. Nektarios of Aegina

the 8th volume of the Reference Book for Sacred Ministers (RC) reads: “Baptism is considered as always fully effectual, even in heretical and schismatical groups…Hence, according to classical Roman theology, every baptized person is by right subject to the jurisdiction of the pope…”

What presumption!No wonder so many non-Catholics feel they have to make it clear that they reject the Pope and do so very vocally.What was it that lubeltri said? Oh yeah:

So I see this thread is turning into another Latin invasion where we are all taught how imperfect and wrong we are because we're not with the pope and also the virtues of the papacy are extolled and qoutes and canon law will be abound. then it'll be an argument. We aren't in a Roman Catholic message board. We know how to type the names of Roman Catholic message boards into the brower where we can get our dose. Anymore it seems many posts are becoming Roman Catholic centered. I realise this is the Orthodox-Catholic section but golly, I reckon I'm not going to see Orthodox read some of the Latin posts and run to the Roman Catholic church up the street and join because some people on a message board showed him the ways and he wants to make it right that he wasn't a papal subject.

the 8th volume of the Reference Book for Sacred Ministers (RC) reads: “Baptism is considered as always fully effectual, even in heretical and schismatical groups…Hence, according to classical Roman theology, every baptized person is by right subject to the jurisdiction of the pope…”

What presumption!

Yeah, how dare those Catholics reject branch theory!

I kid; but seriously, I just don't see presumption to which you're referring. I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. UOJ is either true or it isn't, not "true for Catholics but ... " or anything of that sort.

If you're asking your fellow Orthodox whether I'm subject to the authority of Orthodox bishops, you will presumably get a different answer.

True, but that answer will not be that you are subject to their authority.You may have heard it quoted on this forum that we Orthodox can only say where the Church is, we cannot say where it is not. Therefore, our Bishops have no right to claim jurisdiction over anyone who does not wish to be part of the Church. It would be presumptuous and vainglorious in the extreme for a Bishop- any Bishop, to claim jurisdiction over anyone who does not willingly subject to their authority. Any Bishop who claims such authority would be doing exactly what King Canute the Great sought to disprove by commanding the tide not to come in.So while I accept that you are subject to the authority of the Pope by virtue of your personal allegience- you cannot impose his authority on those who refuse to submit to him. You can claim that he has such "authority" until the cows come home, it doesn't make one iota of difference. It is an empty claim.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 07:55:05 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

See, this is where the whole "no baptism outside the Church is valid" thing really helps out. If the person in question wasn't actually baptized, no worries about who owns them.

Exactly!And it also prevents Bishops from claiming authority where they have no authority.The Church is not the World. Christ made that clear: "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." (John 17:9)

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

You must have heard this before! The authority of Orthodox Bishops is limited by the Canons- even within the Church.Even the Oecumenical Patriarch does not have direct authority over the other Patriarchs- but must convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to make decisions. A recent example is the deposing of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem. His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, had no authority to depose the Patriarch alone, but called a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to come to a decision.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

You must have heard this before! The authority of Orthodox Bishops is limited by the Canons- even within the Church.Even the Oecumenical Patriarch does not have direct authority over the other Patriarchs- but must convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to make decisions. A recent example is the deposing of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem. His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, had no authority to depose the Patriarch alone, but called a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to come to a decision.

And THEY even did not depose the Patriarch of Jerusalem, but merely recognized the Jerusalem Synod's actions.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

You must have heard this before! The authority of Orthodox Bishops is limited by the Canons- even within the Church.Even the Oecumenical Patriarch does not have direct authority over the other Patriarchs- but must convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to make decisions. A recent example is the deposing of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem. His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, had no authority to depose the Patriarch alone, but called a Pan-Orthodox Synod among the Patriarchates to come to a decision.

No, what I haven't heard before (from an Orthodox, that is, leaving aside Anglicanism, etc.) is that statement that a bishop can't claim jurisdiction over "anyone who does not willingly subject to their authority".

Well since this topic was started by a fairly new Orthodox inquirer for "Papal" target practice guess it's only fair play to have one for the MP, EP etc...eh

Well, I am not privy to people's motivations for starting topics, but if you want to set up a thread to ask questions about the MP or the EP etc, feel free to do so. I agree with PJ, I don't think anyone is really using the Pope for "target practice" in this thread. We are dialogging, not throwing rotten vegetables at each other.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

No, what I haven't heard before (from an Orthodox, that is, leaving aside Anglicanism, etc.) is that statement that a bishop can't claim jurisdiction over "anyone who does not willingly subject to their authority".

Blessings,Peter.

It's simply a statement of reality PJ, and even the Pope cannot really claim authority over anyone outside of the Catholic Church. If he could, then surely you and I would be celebrating Pascha/Easter on the same day!I can claim to have authority over my cats, but not one thing I say will stop them from bringing lizards into the house or scratching the sofa.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Was just wondering, does it work the other way too? I.e. if I tell you to do something and you do it, would that prove that I have some kind of authority over you?

No.All true authority comes ultimately from God.Christ recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate as genuine authority coming from God (John 19:11). But Christ did not recognize the false authority of the Court of Herod. Pilate tries to avoid judging Christ by saying that Christ "belonged to Herod's jurisdiction" (Luke 23:7). But Christ refuses to recognize Herod's "authority" and refuses to answer him (Luke 23:9). When people warn Christ that Herod was out to kill Him, He replies by saying that He will do as He Wills and He will be killed, not by Herod's "authority", but by His own voluntary submission to death under Pilate (Luke 13:31-32).

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

QUOTE: "It is the traditionalist movement in the Orthodox Church which speaks so harshly about the Pope of Rome. The writings of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, since 1965 (+/-), take quite the opposite position, speaking of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the two lungs of Christianity. Ecumenical Patriarchs in this period address the Pope as "Elder Brother." Relations with the heterodox is a topic on the planning agenda of the Great and Holy Council (Synod) of the Orthodox Church, which has been in the planning stages since 1923. Although, even saints of the Orthodox Church have referred to the Pope as a heretic, contemporary hierarchs point out that a synod of the Church has never so condemned the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church."

While it is true that more than one Saint of the Holy Church has indeed condemned Roman Catholicism as a heresy, it is also true, as you write (I think) that the Ecumenical Patriarchs since 1965 have said various so-called "positive" things about Roman Catholicism, the Pope, etc. I, myself, would most certainly rather accept the authority of any Saint than any of the recent occupants of the Ecumenical Throne, many of whom, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Freemasons (which has been more than acceptably proven on more than one occasion).

However, the statement that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as heresy in Council, Synod, officially, etc, etc, etc, keeps cropping up, over and over again. It would seem that the statement is simply not true at all, but, of course, we have to know exactly what the statement means. Does it mean that Roman Catholicism has never been condemned as a heresy by an ECUMENICAL Council, or an ECUMENICAL Synod? If so, well, we have to agree with the statement, as the last Council regarded universally by the Church as Ecumenical was in 787.

However, if that is NOT what is meant, and local councils, synods, and sobors are acceptable to your definition of what is acceptable in regard to this question, I would have to strongly disagree with the statement.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople, 879-880, strongly sanctioned any additions to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), making additions heretical, which, of course, included the "filioque." So, 879-880, the "filioque," a Roman Catholic addition to the Creed is condemned as heresy.

The Fifth Council of Constantinople, 1341-1351, denounced Barlaam the Calabrian's Latin soaked condemnations of the hesychasm of Saint Gregory Palamas. Barlaam later became the Roman catholic Bishop of Gerace, condemned as a heretic by the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Synod of Jerusalem of Jerusalem in 1672, while primarily defending the Church against Calvinist doctrines, again strongly condemned the "filioque," and as heresy, again a condemnation of the Roman church.

Dr. Constantine Cavarnos "discovered" a Catechism published originally in 1903-as you will see, although not a "Synod" or "Council," Patriarch Anthimos VI of Constantinople "signed on" to the approval of the Catechism, as did members of the Holy Synod-in essence, like a conciliar decision-deliberated over, signed onto!

"FROM THE ORTHODOX CATECHISM OF 1872 OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE REGARDING VARIOUS HERETICS.

Many times we hear from ecumenists that the Orthodox Church never officially identified the Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics. However, in the "Sacred Catechism of the Orthodox Church" written by Demetrios N. Vernardakis we find the exact definition of Roman Catholics and Protestants as heretics.

The catechism was written in response to a competition announced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the best Catechism to be used on the Greek schools of Constantinople. Vernardakis' submitted his work, entitled "Sacred Catechism," and it was selected as the best one. In fact, in his forward Patriarch Anthimos states that the Ecclesiastical Committee which was appointed to select the best among the catechisms that had been submitted in response to the contest and declared that his work was the best in existence. This catechism was published in 1874 with a formal statement about it by Patriarch Anthimos, dated June 2, 1872 with a foreword by him, accompanied by the names of ten members of the Holy Synod.

From the catechism we cite the following passages:

"Question. Was it only of old time that there were (such) heresies and heretics, or do they exist even now?

Answer. They exist, unhappily, even now, in very great numbers.

Question. What are the greatest of these heresies?

Answer. The first is the heresy of the Latins, Westerns, or Papists, who have been separated from the true Church of Christ, and are subject to the Pope of Rome.

Questions. What other?

Answer. Next are the Protestants, who have been separated from the Pope, and are no longer subject to him. They are subdivided into Lutherans, Calvinists, and numberless other heresies."

Take from the above Catechism, p. 47. "

While these are a few brief examples, I am sure that with more time and research, many more examples could be found. Also, I am sure that these examples will not be sufficient, or not what you meant, or not acceptable for one reason or another, simply because you do not want to accept thatthe Orthodox Church ever "condemned" the Latins as heretics!

It is sort of amusing to me that the statements of Saints apparently are not acceptable to you, and only the official statements of Synods, Councils, etc., are sufficient for the condemnation of Rome as heretical. The amusing part is that apparently, it does NOT take any Synod or Council, however, to "lift" the anathemas (which were, in themselves a condemnation of the Papacy, no?), to declare East and West as the "Two Lungs" of the Church, or "Sister Churches," or any other ridiculous ecumenical excess-a statement from the Patriarch of Constantinople seemingly is enough for you to accomplish these feats, is it not?

A patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the Catholic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I am an Eastern Catholic because I accept the doctrine of primacy within synodality (cf. Apostolic Canon 34), and I believe that the hierarchy of the Roman Church itself is moving – albeit slowly – toward acceptance of that theological position.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

If person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses to do anything that person A says, does that mean that person A's authority isn't real?

I would say that authority does not depend on acceptance. Americans, in particular, are fond of saying that leaders derive their authority from the consent of the governed. However, in other government systems, including those from our own pre-Revolutionary past, this is not the case. If the king has authority over his subjects, he does not lose this authority simply because some reject it. Rather, he will exercise his authority by sending his followers to bring the rebels to justice.

I don't know as much about the Orthodox Church, but I believe I am correct in saying that in the Catholic Church, the authority of the pope, bishops and priests does not, in any way, depend on the consent of the laity. As the minister in the movie Chariots of Fire said, "The kingdom of God is not a democracy."

I would say that authority does not depend on acceptance. Americans, in particular, are fond of saying that leaders derive their authority from the consent of the governed. However, in other government systems, including those from our own pre-Revolutionary past, this is not the case.

Actually, even in a democracy like the U.S.A., once a man or woman has been elected president by the majority, he or she is the president of all, including those who voted against him or her.

Ask Louie XVI of France, Tsar St. Nicholas II, King Constantine of Greece,......

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths. The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths. The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths. The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Some would say that Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and King Constantine remained the rightful rulers of their nations right up until the moment of their deaths. The rebels were guilty of treason against their rulers, not their former rulers.

Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored?

Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored? Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?

I have to say reading this thread I feel a little like I'm in the twilight zone. Being told again and again by Catholics that yes, we are all subject to their Patriarch whether we like it or not or whether we even realize it or not is giving me a headache. In all honesty I have a hard time even understanding the mindset of a person who believes such a thing, much less what it must be like to try and defend that position.

Well "the rebels" now run the Republic of France, the Democratic Republic of Greece, and Russia. Should their authority be ignored?

No. We can't undo every error of the past. We have to live with the reality of today. We can't bring these dead monarchs back to life and return them to their thrones (thought that might be an interesting idea for a novel... ).

Quote

Aren't you forgetting that the democracy of the USA was established by overthrowing the authority of the British Monarch? Was the US wrong to do so?

Some would argue that the USA was wrong to do so. As I said above, however, we have to live with the reality of today. Much time has passed since then. The USA and the UK are allies who have worked together in common cause many times. However, we are independent nations. While some might wish the USA would acknowledge the British monarch as sovereign, this simply is not going to happen. Plus, the British monarch no longer claims authority over the USA, which could really settle the issue on its own.

I have to say reading this thread I feel a little like I'm in the twilight zone. Being told again and again by Catholics that yes, we are all subject to their Patriarch whether we like it or not or whether we even realize it or not is giving me a headache.

Hmmm ... Interesting that that's giving you a headache, considering it isn't what we've been talking about. (What we've been discussing, since about #38, is George's claim that if person A has authority over person B, and person B refuses that authority, then that means the authority isn't real. To be honest, though, it doesn't seem we're getting anywhere: I don't see anyone becoming convinced of ozgeorge's position except those who already agreed with it, or vice versa.)

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I don't know as much about the Orthodox Church, but I believe I am correct in saying that in the Catholic Church, the authority of the pope, bishops and priests does not, in any way, depend on the consent of the laity. As the minister in the movie Chariots of Fire said, "The kingdom of God is not a democracy."

I don't believe this is quite right. In fairness the formula from Vatican I does state explicitly that the infallibility is not dependent on the consent of the Church, but the explanation of what that means in the formula was given by Bishop Gasser on behalf of those who wrote the formula in his explanation known as the Relatio -.http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise16.html"But in saying this we do not separate the Pontiff from his ordained union with the Church. For the Pope is only infallible when, exercising his function as teacher of all Christians and therefore representing the whole Church, he judges and defines what must be believed or rejected by all. He is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support. Indeed we do not separate the Pope, defining, from the cooperation and consent of the Church, at least in the sense that we do not exclude this cooperation and this consent of the Church. ..."

"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail...."

As I read this, trying to be fair to a difficult Roman dogma, the Roman Church seems to be saying that the Pope doesn't need a vote or some other confirmation - either before or after he does something infallible.

It isn't that I disagree with your conclusion -- I definitely support a, um, non-ultramontane interpretation of Vatican I -- but I don't think citing Bishop Gasser is the best way to support your conclusion. My understanding is that he was really very ultramontane, even if some particular statements of his may appear otherwise. (Even in what you quoted, Bishop Gasser follows up the statement "we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church" with the statement that "this consent is never able to be lacking to him" !)

Cardinal Newman is a better source for a more moderate view of Vatican I (although I even disagree with him on a some points).

It isn't that I disagree with your conclusion -- I definitely support a, um, non-ultramontane interpretation of Vatican I -- but I don't think citing Bishop Gasser is the best way to support your conclusion. My understanding is that he was really very ultramontane, even if some particular statements of his may appear otherwise. (Even in what you quoted, Bishop Gasser follows up the statement "we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church" with the statement that "this consent is never able to be lacking to him" !)

Cardinal Newman is a better source for a more moderate view of Vatican I (although I even disagree with him on a some points).

Blessings,Peter.

There are two reasons why Gasser's Relatio is, IMHO, the preferred cite:1. He was the spokesman for the Deputation that wrote the formula - so he should know as well as anyone what the Deputation meant when it wrote the formula, i.e., he is authoritative.

2. The Relatio is cited by Vatican II in its discussion on the role of Bishops, thereby further confirming the authority of it, especially when one considers that Vatican I was supposed to take up the role of Bishops in the context of infallibility and never got around to it.

Now I've got even a 3rd argument that I should have thought of before: 3. Gasser was most certainly an ultramontanist and his Gallican statements are that much more powerful because of it.

As to your statement about consent never being missing - well as I said, it's a difficult dogma for the Roman church. I just think it should be presented accurately and fairly. Whether one accepts it or not is another issue altogether.

A patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the Catholic Church through the profession of the Orthodox faith during the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the late medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical subservience to the bishop of Rome.

So, uh, what exactly is your view of the Latin Church then? I am not asking for the sake of arguing. I am genuinely curious. Also, I am curious as to your opinion about what Churches constitute the Church, that is, the Church established by Christ.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Now I've got even a 3rd argument that I should have thought of before: 3. Gasser was most certainly an ultramontanist and his Gallican statements are that much more powerful because of it.

Depends how you mean that. If you mean something along the lines of "Gasser was a leading ultramontantist, yet even he admitted that such-and-such", then I agree. It's partly along that same reasoning, in fact, that I study Cardinal Newman's writing: he's pretty well respected by conservative (and so-called "traditionalist") Catholics today, so a statement like "Even Newman believed it unwise to define Papal Infallibility dogmatically." is pretty effective.

As to your statement about consent never being missing - well as I said, it's a difficult dogma for the Roman church. I just think it should be presented accurately and fairly. Whether one accepts it or not is another issue altogether.

But presenting it accurately and fairly should include drawing a clear distinction between what has been dogmatically defined and is binding on Catholics, and what is just somebody-or-other's opinion. (For example, Cardinal Newman, elaborating on the conditions for a statement to be ex cathedra, said that teaching "has no sacramental visible signs; it is an opus operantis, and mainly a question of intention" -- in this case, a question of the pope's intention to make an ex cathedra statement. But neither I nor any other Catholic is obligated to agree with Newman on that point, cf. my blog.)

There are two reasons why Gasser's Relatio is, IMHO, the preferred cite:1. He was the spokesman for the Deputation that wrote the formula - so he should know as well as anyone what the Deputation meant when it wrote the formula, i.e., he is authoritative.

Quote from: Cardinal Newman

7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the {329} special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra , of giving that very answer truly. "Nothing," says Perrone, "but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons ," &c.— ibid .

8. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope's Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condition is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord's Name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is not teaching and speaking ex cathedrâ , because no question on this matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism—viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter , as a private doctor, says Bellarmine, "that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only." ( De Rom. Pont ., iv. 12.)

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

If the Pope was given the best seat in the house why was he never in it?

Now, it is my understanding, that the Pope is considered a heretic. But, before the Great-Schism, why was the Pope allowed the best seat at an Ecumenical Council and was recognized as the first among equals?

If the Pope was given the best seat in the house why was he never in it?

That is because the East took care of things when it mattered.

Probably because the Role of The Patriarch of the West or Rome developed differently than the role of the other historic Patriarchates. The role as a Political Ruler was a role played by the Patriarch of the West only prior to the schizism. When one is ruling a political entity such as the papal estates, one is also in danger of revolt and replacement while attending to business out of the secular kingdom---this is the reality of why a Pope did not attend the Ecumenical Councils but only sent legates and then confirmed the Councils. I am not sure that the other patriarchates always had patriarchs attending as well but know that it was seen as a council that all bishops who could attend thus making it ecumenical or a church wide council.